The Times Goes To Law School

The NY Times editors have been thinking about Justice Scalia, strict constructionism, and the Constitution, and applaud the idea of an evolving document:

Many of the most central principles of American constitutional law - from the right to a court-appointed lawyer to the right to buy contraception - have emerged from the court's evolving sense of the meaning of constitutional clauses. Justice Scalia seems to be suggesting that many, or perhaps all, of these rights should exist only at the whim of legislatures.

My goodness - dare we whisper to the Times editors that in their beautiful world, these "rights" exist at the whim of Men in Black?

Of course, some rights have been enumerated by amendment; other times, as with the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act, the "whim" of legislators seems to be acceptable.  But who can tell with the Times?

In other legal news, Dahlia Lithwick seems to think that when Congress writes laws, that is "congressional activism".  The Monk smites her (but you have to read to point 4).

Comments

[Forbes]

The Times apparently knows nothing about democracy and an elected, representative government--at least by such statements. But then the politics of the Times does tend towards that of an unelected ruling class of elitists. Nothing surprising therein.